Both the article and the lecturer discuss the hypothesis of the migration of edmontosaurs.

Both the article and the lecturer discuss the hypothesis of the migration of edmontosaurs. On one hand, the article shows evidence in order to support this theory. On the other hand, the professor opposes by stating that the hypothesis is not convincing at all. First and foremost, the reading attributes the hypothesis to the fact that edmontosaurs are herbivores. However, the professor refutes this point by saying that the edmontosaurs didn't necessarily migrate to find food, which includes plants. He states that the North Slope was much warmer back then and there was, in fact, a good and harmonious condition for plants to grow in the summer. Consequently, when the winter came, edmontosaurs were able to gain nutrients from the abundance of dead plants. In addition, the article posits that skeletons of edmontosaurs indicate that they lived in herds. Moreover, this behavior was similar to that of modern-day migratory animals so that edmontosaurs must have migrated. Nevertheless, the professor casts doubt on this point by emphasizing that there are many other reasons for edmontosaurs to have lived in herds, such as extra protection. For instance, he says that the Roosevelt Elks, which live in the forests in herds, don't migrate. Last but not least, the reading indicates that the physical capability of edmontosaurs contributed to their migration. In contrast, the professor rebuts this argument. He argues that only adultery edmontosaurs were that strenuous. That being said, the juvenile ones must have slowed down the herd and the herd had to stay on the cold North Slope since the children edmontosaurs couldn't be left behind. In conclusion, while the passage in the classroom discussion provides fascinating information with regards to the migration of edmontosaurs, we find that the argument of the article is flawed for the reasons mentioned by the professor.